SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — The Ninth Circuit granted an injunction Tuesday preventing the California attorney general’s office from enforcing a new child safety social media law that critics claim violates the First Amendment.
Senate Bill 976, also known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, prevents social media platforms from knowingly providing an addictive feed to minors without parental consent. The law, passed in September, will no longer take effect on Feb. 1, as previously planned.
In a brief 2-page order, U.S. Circuit Judges Richard Paez, a Bill Clinton appointee, Jay Bybee, a George W. Bush appointee, and Eric D. Miller, a Donald Trump appointee, granted the injunction to NetChoice, a powerful tech lobbying group that sued the Golden State in a bid to thwart the law.
The injunction prevents the law from being enforced for NetChoice’s member companies — which include Amazon, Google, Lyft, Meta, PayPal, Snap, Waymo and X, formerly Twitter — while the appeal pends. The court also ordered the appeal to be expedited.
Although the ruling marks a temporary win for NetChoice, the organization will still have to convince a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit at a hearing in April if it hopes to strike down the act.
“We are grateful that the Ninth Circuit agreed to halt SB 976 in its entirety while our case proceeds,” Paul Taske, NetChoice’s associate director of litigation, said in a statement. “This law has serious implications for Californians’ First Amendment and digital privacy rights. NetChoice looks forward to stopping yet another online censorship regime from California’s government.”
In light of the development, the attorney general’s office reaffirmed its commitment to battling the lawsuit.
“SB 976 is about protecting children and giving families a choice over the relationship they want to create with social media, not limiting speech. The California Department of Justice remains confident in our case and is committed to vigorously defending this commonsense statute,” a spokesperson for their press office told Courthouse News.
NetChoice is a trade association and lobbyist that represents some of the largest interests in the tech world — companies it claims facilitate speech protected by the First Amendment. Founded in 2001, the group has steadily climbed in scope and influence over the last decade and currently has six active lawsuits over state-level internet regulations.
The group filed its lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta in November, claiming that the act is less about protecting kids and more about censoring lawful speech and expression. The tech advocates argue that the personalized feeds found on social media sites, which bear colorful titles like “For You,” “Following” and “Landing,” amount to expressive activity on the companies’ part, and as such should be protected.
In addition to arguments that adequate parental controls for regulating minors’ social media habits already exist or that the law’s definitions of an addictive feed are “unconstitutionally vague,” the group claims its members would have to endure burdensome changes to comply with the law’s requirements.
In late December, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila partially granted a preliminary injunction barring the law’s enforcement, saying parts of it are likely to infringe upon the First Amendment.
However, he also allowed several parts of the law to remain enforceable, a decision the attorney general’s office spun as an “early win.”
NetChoice appealed the decision earlier this month, and the Barack Obama-appointed judge issued them a 30-day injunction to see if the Ninth Circuit would grant its own injunction pending appeal.
In a motion before the appellate court, NetChoice argued its injunction should be granted because it is likely to prevail on the merits of the case, and its covered members will face “irreparable harm” without one.
The attorney general’s office reaffirmed its commitment to battling the lawsuit.
‘SB 976 is about protecting children and giving families a choice over the relationship they want to create with social media, not limiting speech. The California Department of Justice remains confident in our case and is committed to vigorously defending this commonsense statute,” a spokesperson for their press office told Courthouse News.